Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380, Leahy: "...majority Of Customers Will Stay"  
User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5878 times:

Hi!

Please read this article:

http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=7276

"...I think most [A380] customers I've talked to are annoyed," he conceded. "They're clearly upset. But there's no rush to the doors,,,I think the majority of customers will stay."

Nothing really new, but I think the keyword here is MAJORITY, - until now we have seen only one cancellation, but when Mr. Leahy himself is saying majority I am afraid more has to come.
My guess could be Korean and/or Malaysia - but what do you think?


Regards
Steen


Keep it clear of the propellers
56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5866 times:

Quoting 797charter (Thread starter):
My guess could be Korean and/or Malaysia

Common opinion on here is that both of them want a way out (as they either don't want the plane anymore or have no money) and the delay may be a good excuse.


User currently offlineManni From South Korea, joined Nov 2001, 4221 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5836 times:

Quoting 797charter (Thread starter):
My guess could be Korean and/or Malaysia - but what do you think?

Korean Air's CEO recently said that they remain commited to the A380 and will take delivery of them. KE not ordering the 748i when they recently placed a huge widebody order, indicates also that the A380 has a future in KE's fleet. I can't see the 773ER becoming KE's largest aircraft. If anything, look out for additional orders from KE rather than cancellations.

As for MH. Your guess is as good as mine. Rumour has it that MH simply can't afford to buy new aircraft now.



SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
User currently offlineScouseflyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 3398 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
As for MH. Your guess is as good as mine. Rumour has it that MH simply can't afford to buy new aircraft now.

That's what the head of one of their unions was saying during negotiations recently.


User currently offline2wingtips From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 5764 times:

UPS are a very likely canceller IMO. It has been reported every 380 order is in the cancellation zone, so why would UPS go it alone with the 380F, when all of the competition is going with the 777f and/or 748F?
China Southern are reported to be looking at swapping 380s for 350s. A likely scenario IMO.
TG and MH are known to be looking closely at their A380 commitment and I'm not sure why Kingfisher ordered them, except they like a very eclectic Airbus WB line-up.


User currently offlineColumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7088 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5715 times:

Reports here in Germany are that Thai may cancel if they don´t get compensation payments like other airlines did. They will decide until December 19th.
Sorry in German only:
http://www.aero.de/news.php?varnewsid=1812



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineSq212 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 272 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5643 times:

No cancellations: EK, EY, QR, SQ, AF, QF. KE, LH and IT
Deferred (2013 and beyond): VS, ILFC
Not Certain: MH, UPS, CZ, TG
Cancelled: FX

9 out of 16 represents majority. Leahy is right.

Cheers


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4166 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5630 times:

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
UPS are a very likely canceller IMO. It has been reported every 380 order is in the cancellation zone, so why would UPS go it alone with the 380F, when all of the competition is going with the 777f and/or 748F?

The A380F might simply be a very good fit for their parcel business, and IMO has a very interesting place in 5X´s fleet. If I´m not completely mistaken, 5X has now a "dual-fleet" - one for regular freight hauling (747-8i, 744ERF = flying the UPSCS stuff) and one for parcels (flying the Parcel stuff). And the A380F is a good parcel freighter.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
China Southern are reported to be looking at swapping 380s for 350s. A likely scenario IMO.

That so far is an unsustained rumour and nothing else.

Quoting 2wingtips (Reply 4):
I'm not sure why Kingfisher ordered them, except they like a very eclectic Airbus WB line-up.

India is booming like hell, and sooner or later this will clearly show in international passengers as well. Many people are already saying that India will be the economy of the 21st century, not China. Current growth constrains at many main airports clearly indicate that size DOES matter - and will even more in future. Thus Kingfisher has taken a gamble on the future, and current outlook is that they are right on track.

Quoting Columba (Reply 5):
Reports here in Germany are that Thai may cancel if they don´t get compensation payments like other airlines did

Taking Areo International is source is a joke. Anyway, TG is likely playing a "give me as much as you can" game with Airbus, and part of this game is public threatening. I have doubts that they seriously consider cancelling their order.

Korean Air is unlikely as well - they do need this equipment. MH is another matter - their plans of making KUL a second SIN have largely failed, and thus their need for the A380 more or less as well. Money is the next constraint. However, cancelling these birds will be quite a loss of face, and I seriously don´t know if this will not overrule any economical decision.

Thus my money is on MH as contender for cancellation.



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

While its very hard to draw any real conclusions from the usage of one word in a sentence, I do agree that Leahy saying the "Majority" of A380 customers will remain onboard is noteworthy. He certainly would have said "all" of the reamaining customers plan to accept delivery of the A380 if that was the case....so something is up.

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 6):
No cancellations: EK, EY, QR, SQ, AF, QF. KE, LH and IT
Deferred (2013 and beyond): VS, ILFC
Not Certain: MH, UPS, CZ, TG
Cancelled: FX

9 out of 16 represents majority. Leahy is right.

Cheers

Probably an accurate summary.....although didnt Kingfisher recently report that they are losing lots and lots of money? They could be a problem, nothing to do with the A380, simply a financial issue.

Before everyone gets over excited, lets see how this plays out. While there could be additional cancellations in the coming months, at some point Airbus will sell more A380s to more customers, it will happen, and remember I am a Boeing guy. That the A380 is very late, and that some airlines are very upset with Airbus (Leahy's comment, not mine) has not helped the A380 program, but I do suspect that things will get better once the A380 enters service and proves its capabilities.

[Edited 2006-12-06 13:58:30]

User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5493 times:

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 7):
TG is likely playing a "give me as much as you can" game with Airbus, and part of this game is public threatening.

I think the wording 'majority of customers' is also part of this game.

John Leahy is simply creating some 'margin' in his statements because he knows most compensation negotiations are not finished yet and that for some of them there is still a wide gap between what the airline wants and what airbus only offers, thus showing readiness to cope with one or 2 cancellations certainly takes some of the wind away under the ultimate threat to cancel...

Besides, at some point I can think of a scenario where Airbus tells the airline: we're not going to give you that much no matter what you do, because quite frankly if you'd cancel, we'd be recovering some precious delivery slots and thus either save more money by being able to reduce the compensation payment to another customer or even book a new 'full fair' customer in your slot.

As Dutchjet has rightfully said:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 8):
At some point Airbus will sell more A380s to more customers; it will happen, and remember I am a Boeing guy. That the A380 is very late and that some airlines are very upset with Airbus (Leahy's comment, not mine) has not helped the A380 program, but I do suspect that things will get better once the A380 enters service and proves its capabilities.

Airbus need to maximize the revenue generated from the (limited) production line and if this can be optimized by pushing some smaller customers like TG or MH to the door, then it might even proof to be a good strategy to let them know their orders have been and are still very welcome, but not at whatever cost to the company. A correct amount of compensation must be paid to them, but Airbus should and apparently is not willing to pay them to stay on board of a program when the production simply can't follow up on demand (albeit due to the delays).


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):

Airbus need to maximize the revenue generated from the (limited) production line and if this can be optimized by pushing some smaller customers like TG or MH to the door, then it might even proof to be a good strategy to let them know their orders have been and are still very welcome, but not at whatever cost to the company. A correct amount of compensation must be paid to them, but Airbus should and apparently is not willing to pay them to stay on board of a program when the production simply can't follow up on demand (albeit due to the delays).

Interesting comment.....Airbus does have to move along and get out of its ""panic mode"", that being paying whatever compensation is necessary to keep A380 customers onboard. It not a good strategy. While I am not sure what to believe concerning compensation to be paid by Airbus to A380 customers in consideration of the delay, the entire exercise has cost Airbus dearly financially and Airbus did lose a lot of credibility. As stated, is time to move along.

Airbus cannot protect A380 orders at any cost, and some carriers may cancel.


User currently offline797charter From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting Sq212 (Reply 6):
No cancellations: EK, EY, QR, SQ, AF, QF. KE, LH and IT
Deferred (2013 and beyond): VS, ILFC
Not Certain: MH, UPS, CZ, TG
Cancelled: FX

9 out of 16 represents majority. Leahy is right.

Don't misunderstand me, - I am sure Leahy is right.
On the other hand he may not tell us all what he know, - at the moment.

Personally I would hate to see more cancellations, but who knows...

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 8):
While its very hard to draw any real conclusions from the usage of one word in a sentence, I do agree that Leahy saying the "Majority" of A380 customers will remain onboard is noteworthy. He certainly would have said "all" of the reamaining customers plan to accept delivery of the A380 is that was the case....so something is up.

   Just what I tried to express


Regards

Steen

[Edited 2006-12-06 14:16:50]


Keep it clear of the propellers
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5343 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 10):
Interesting comment....
I think we can agree it is a rational comment though.

As you say,

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 10):
Airbus cannot protect A380 orders at any cost, and some carriers may cancel.
A modest number of cancellations (let's say 2 to 3 customers for 5 to 10 A308s each) will not have a dramatic influence on Airbus balance sheet for the coming years, since with the revised production and delivery scheme Airbus A380 line is sold out for many years to come (till 2011, 2012, something like that?) so they have a very long time span to sell more lucratively priced A380s to new customers for them not having to go really beyond what has been contractually stipulated on compensation payments in order to keep small customers like TG on board.

It just wouldn't make any sense from a financial point of view and I think that is just the line Airbus is actively pursuing in the negotiations with the airlines, hence the fact these negotiations appear to proceed very slowly...

[Edited 2006-12-06 14:24:23]

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5338 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 12):
I think we can agree it is a rational comment though.

Very rational, very interesting and very correct (I hope that you did not mistake my intent.)


User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5216 times:

IMO, it should be a matter of grave concern in Toulouse that ILFC has deferred its order, which means that despite years of marketing efforts, Mr. Udvar-Hazy & Co. have been unable to place a single A380 (ten or fewer) with airline operators by means of operating leases before 2013. Sad

User currently offlineWINGS From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, RR: 68
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5185 times:

Quoting Leelaw (Reply 14):
IMO, it should be a matter of grave concern in Toulouse that ILFC has deferred its order, which means that despite years of marketing efforts, Mr. Udvar-Hazy & Co. have been unable to place a single A380 (ten or fewer) with airline operators by means of operating leases before 2013. Sad

Don't forget that EK was to lease 2 A380's from ILFC. It has been mentioned that Airbus is negotiating with EK for them to take those 2 frames directly from Airbus.

Regards,
Wings



Aviation Is A Passion.
User currently offlineLeelaw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5075 times:

Quoting WINGS (Reply 15):
Don't forget that EK was to lease 2 A380's from ILFC. It has been mentioned that Airbus is negotiating with EK for them to take those 2 frames directly from Airbus.

This mitigates the damage slightly, but it doesn't change the fact that the A380 has been a bust on the leasing market so far. ILFC's ability to place Airbus aircraft with operators has been a key element in the airframer's success over the last 15-20 years.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5062 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):
Airbus need to maximize the revenue generated from the (limited) production line and if this can be optimized by pushing some smaller customers like TG or MH to the door, then it might even proof to be a good strategy to let them know their orders have been and are still very welcome, but not at whatever cost to the company. A correct amount of compensation must be paid to them, but Airbus should and apparently is not willing to pay them to stay on board of a program when the production simply can't follow up on demand (albeit due to the delays).

That's an interesting statement. I don't think that Airbus can afford to take on any more water in the A380 program. They're simply not in a position to throw anyone to the wolves right now because the entire A380 program is on the thinnest of thin ice. Its survival is dubious.

That pains me because it'll mean job losses here in the states for all my mates at Goodrich...

In addition what you suggest would be suicidal for any marketing department-the objective right now is to place the product and stem the bloodletting, not to start cutting people loose. I would conclude that rather than tossing money at the operators willy nilly, the amount of compensation any operator gets for program delays would be something that's part of the contract for sale, which I am sure Airbus never figured they'd have to pay off on.

As Yogi Berra said, people are staying away in droves and ANY more bad publicity, delays, screwing the customers or anything like what we've seen so far could well be the tipping point at which the entire program goes in the dumpster.


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):
save more money by being able to reduce the compensation payment to another customer

 no There is no chance that the compensation due to another customer would exceed the revenue to be booked by delivering an A380. None.

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 9):
or even book a new 'full fair' customer in your slot.

This contradicts what you implied above. If a customer cancels, subsequent deliveries would move up to fill the slot...right? Therefore there is no reasonable prospect of a new customer, if one existed, receiving an early delivery on an A380. The current customers would be in open rebellion if that occurred.

The only bright light in an A380 cancellation would be a conversion to other Airbus types that would not have been ordered otherwise. At least then Airbus gets some income. Any other case represents a net loss to Airbus. There's no getting around that fact.



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 18):
There is no chance that the compensation due to another customer would exceed the revenue to be booked by delivering an A380. None

You are assuming a cancellation translates in a revenue loss for Airbus that year, but given the fact production rate is very limited during the first few years and demand for at least the coming 5 years is much higher, a cancellation actually does not translate into a revenue loss and won't do so till the moment production capacity turns bigger than annual demand.

From this simple accounting perspective Airbus would and apparently is very unwilling to give more than the contractually agreed compensation payments certainly to non-essencial(read smaller) customers, since it would just be throwing money away really: once on the customer they 'bribe' to stay with the A380 and a second time on even more compensation payments to customers which see their delayed delivery NOT advance because if the first customer staying or alternatively loose out on extra revenue from a new sale at non-launch discount prices... all that to book essentially the same revenue as they would have if the first customer would have cancelled? You must be dreaming.... The only 'advantage' there might be from following your path is that some years down the road, the otherwise cancelled order does get delivered and does generate revenue albeit at launch customer tariffs, but if one is as convinced as Airbus this plane will be in high enough demand to keep the lines busy in lets say 5 or 10 years from now, then the idea of it taking the slot of a more lucrative new sale isn't really a very good stimulator either to hand out better than legally required compensation payments....

[Edited 2006-12-06 16:58:53]

User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4828 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 19):
You are assuming a cancellation translates in a revenue loss for Airbus that year, but given the fact production rate is very limited during the first few years and demand for at least the coming 5 years is much higher, a cancellation actually does not translate into a revenue loss and won't do so till the moment production capacity turns bigger than annual demand.

Nonsense. An A380 cancellation certainly represents more than $100million in lost revenue to Airbus. That is an entirely non-trival sum of money, even if pushed several years into the future. You are correct in saying that the losses will be most acutely felt when the production is ramped up and there are no orders to be filled, but the losses are no less real. A simple thought - if EK cancelled their order would you be making this argument?



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineJimyvr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
KE not ordering the 748i when they recently placed a huge widebody order, indicates also that the A380 has a future in KE's fleet.

Get half of the fact straight. KE was close to be the launch team of 747-8I but Boeing simply can't find a common ground when it comes to whether go with the original 747-8I or the minor stretch version, or go both ways.

Quoting Flying-Tiger (Reply 7):
And the A380F is a good parcel freighter.

As long as UPS is willing to wait for it.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4603 times:

Quoting Slz396 (Reply 19):
From this simple accounting perspective Airbus would and apparently is very unwilling to give more than the contractually agreed compensation payments certainly to non-essencial(read smaller) customers, since it would just be throwing money away really: once on the customer they 'bribe' to stay with the A380 and a second time on even more compensation payments to customers which see their delayed delivery NOT advance because if the first customer staying or alternatively loose out on extra revenue from a new sale at non-launch discount prices... all that to book essentially the same revenue as they would have if the first customer would have cancelled? You must be dreaming.... The only 'advantage' there might be from following your path is that some years down the road, the otherwise cancelled order does get delivered and does generate revenue albeit at launch customer tariffs, but if one is as convinced as Airbus this plane will be in high enough demand to keep the lines busy in lets say 5 or 10 years from now, then the idea of it taking the slot of a more lucrative new sale isn't really a very good stimulator either to hand out better than legally required compensation payments....

Let me see if I've got this right.

You're saying that Airbus is paying MORE compensation than is contractually provided for because of program delays? And because of that, Airbus should throw a few smaller operators to the wolves because those slots thus vacated will become that much more valuable a few years down the road when a whole buncha people will be lining up with ready cash?

How do they say "breach of contract-you'll be hearing from my lawyers" in Europe?

Airbus is committed to provide an airplane according to the contract. If it's late they gotta pay. Maybe they don't make any money, but they always have the option of buying the position back for whatever the market will bear.

One thing they do not get to do is call up some airline that's got a few ordered and say "Sorry, old thing. You're not going to get what you ante'd up for after all because you're a bunch of worthless bums and we want your slots."

Not gonna happen.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

VS are virtually certain to cancel. MH, TG, CZ, UPS, and ILFC are likely to cancel. AF, LH, KE are strong possibilities to cancel. SQ and QF are least likely to cancel.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4494 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 23):
AF, LH, KE are strong possibilities to cancel.

Thats a pretty controversial statement........sorry, I dont agree. Today, at the news conference concerning LH's order for the 748 (great news!), LH reconfirmed that it remains committed to the A380 program and the 748 was being ordered to bridge the gap between the A346 and A380, so that LH would have modern longhaul airplanes seating about 300, 400 and 500 seats.

While its very possible that the A380 could see cancellations from some of the carriers mentioned, I think that LH, AF and KE will stay with the A380 simply because they need a very high capacity airplane.


25 Post contains images RayChuang : If Leahy is hoping the customers for the A380-800 will stay, why did Lufthansa just order 20 confirmed plus 20 options on the Boeing 747-8I?
26 Post contains links 797charter : LH will stay committed to the A380, - without any kind of doubts. Read the press release from LH - and you have all the reasons you need here: http:/
27 Post contains images Manni : Was close to be the launch customer, no more than that. No half facts here, you either order or you dont. Was close to be turned out to be not orderi
28 Post contains images ER757 : AF & LH are virtually guaranteed NOT to cancel. Can't speak for KE's chances. This is definitely in Airbus' best interests. Let's look back at the ea
29 Zvezda : If that were true, there would have been no reason for LH to secure purchase rights for an additional 20 B747-8I SuperJumbos. 20 SuperJumbos plus 15
30 Osiris30 : AF yes, LH I don't agree... regardless of what was said today. Actions speak louder than words. If LH had all the confidence they say they have in th
31 RayChuang : I believe that LH will use the A380-800 on its busiest routes. This will probably mean while the MUC-SFO flight will probably stay with the A340-600
32 ER757 : Now why would they have done that if they needed an aircraft with 400-450 seats? Suggest you read the LH press release - it's pretty clear they are u
33 Post contains images Osiris30 : I'm not saying they will cancel. I'm just not saying I have the confidence to say that they will 100% not cancel. I don't view today's move as a vote
34 Zvezda : As Osiris30 wrote, actions speak louder than words. If Airbus were committed to their WhaleJet order, there is no reason they would have taken the ad
35 Dutchjet : A possibility: LH moves to an A333/A346/748I/A380 longhaul fleet....eliminating the A343 from the fleet over time? Yes, I realize that this would mea
36 11Bravo : I don't think it's likely that we'll see a cancellation either. That being said I think the 20 B748 options are an insurance policy to cover just suc
37 Post contains links Manni : I'm surprised nobody picked this up yet. But if the price they paid is anything near the Seattle Times reports, I'm surprised it took Boeing that lon
38 Siren : Here are my predictions for who will stay and who won't... 78 In the seventh month of the seventh year of the third millennia; a bus of the sky born o
39 Spkyflyer : If I was Leahy today I would be a very nervous man - the 747-8 has gone from concept to reality in a very big way. The markets are going to take this
40 Coa747 : Any cancelation of the A380 is bad, because sales have been stagnent for some time and if other carriers see airlines bailing out on the A380 they are
41 Post contains images Leelaw : Very elegant quatrains, Ma'am. Always nice to have that "female touch" in this decidedly male environment.
42 Post contains links Manni : Here's Kingfisher about their A380 order... http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=63089
43 SparkingWave : The majority of customers will stay, but will non-A380 airlines make new orders for this aircraft or any other new design Airbus aircraft? IMHO Airbus
44 Post contains images Glideslope : Nothing unusual for a Launch Customer. LH opened the door. Let's sit back and see who walks in over the next 6m.
45 PanAmOldDC8 : Me thinks Airbus is worried. Reminds me of the launch of the 747, Boeing was really worried the in the first few years after launch as the orders were
46 Columba : Would not be such a capacity jump because the A330-300 seats almost as much as passengers as the A343. The A343 has more range and more payload but m
47 PVG : Or, maybe they know something that we don't. Maybe Airbus is starting to understand that they can't build the A380 economically and that they might b
48 Manni : The A380 will recieve her certification on tuesday. Do you really think it makes sense to cancel the whole project now? The time of pouring billions
49 Post contains images Astuteman : I must say that for a "fan" of the A380, you seem to posess an almost unhealthily morbid fascination with possibilities to cancel A380 orders. I don'
50 Osiris30 : @astuteman: Well I don't think Z is totally offbase with think ILFC is going to cancel. The 380 is hardly a plane I seeing being picked up on casual l
51 Post contains images Astuteman : He's gotta be right someday by the law of averages.... . No, seriously, I'm not commenting really on whether the predictions are right or wrong. More
52 Dougloid : I think you're close to the truth. They're pouring money down a dry hole, as we say in the oil patch, and it can't go on forever. It's going to take
53 TeamAmerica : I'm curious why the SQ and QF follow-ons haven't been firmed. They were announced with much fanfare...perhaps Airbus is holding them as a way to end
54 Zvezda : No relief at all. I was surprised. Of the four A380F orders, FedEx was the last one I expected to see cancelled. The QF followon for 8 frames has bee
55 NYC777 : Yeah at this point I would be surprised at VS and ILFC cnacelling. I think AF and LH are safe in terms of therir orders. MH and TG are not and the axe
56 Post contains links TeamAmerica : Qantas announced them as firm orders (29-Oct) yet Airbus still does not show them on their Orders & Deliveries sheet. The A380 detail page shows QF w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 On "Eyesore Of The Month" Website posted Thu Feb 10 2005 20:23:16 by JetBlast
Randy's Blog: 747 Is The "Shape Of The Future" posted Sat Dec 9 2006 09:25:32 by Leelaw
EK's Tim Clark On A380: "We Need That Aircraft" posted Tue Nov 7 2006 23:15:42 by PlaneHunter
Fréquence Plus, Will "mileage Gifts" Be Possible posted Tue May 10 2005 21:15:09 by Ushermittwoch
Germanwings Will "kick Out" EasyJet posted Mon May 3 2004 14:03:45 by DoorsToManual
Will "ted" And "song" Work? posted Fri Feb 20 2004 11:19:04 by Alexinwa
Concorde Crash Investigation Will "Take A Long Tim posted Fri Sep 1 2000 14:06:36 by RWally
Will "the New Pan Am" Make It? posted Sun May 7 2000 03:34:01 by CharterFlyer
"Tell El Al Campaign", Pax @ MAN Want LY Back posted Thu Dec 14 2006 10:12:41 by El Al 001
"Keep Delta My Delta" Buttons posted Thu Dec 7 2006 23:41:14 by COERJ145